![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gilligan talk
Aug. 28th, 2003 07:56 pmAm going to be at Bethpage next two days. Me and Carol Gilligan! Then after that, I'm going to try Sundays and see how it works--because Saturdays I'll have driver's ed in the morning. Oy. >.>
My skirt is almost done, there's just a bit of handsewing to do on the hem. I love it! :D
I've noticed sometimes that. . . hmm. How do I want to put this. Every once in a while it will kind of hit me how hard it is to understand other people. Like, I'll just get this new realization of the fact. Like, that no matter how similar we all are in some ways, everyone thinks differently. This will come home to me sometime when I can kind of see something [that someone is thinking] that I just won't understand. And I don't even mean something so horrible or whatever that you say "How can they do that?". It'll just be something that's a little beyond my comprehension, or just really different from what I would have thought. Kinda. A little more so, but that's the basic thing. Which is something important to recognize, I think. Like. . . that you can't always understand everything that someone else does, because they're a different person. And maybe that that doesn't mean they're wrong, you know? You can't really see how someone thinks. This is something I've kind of been thinking about lately because of In a Different Voice. She makes all these judgements. . . and also a lot of generalizations--it gets kind of dangerous, but that's not really my point, I guess. She has all these case studies to prove her points, and I'll love hearing what people had to say, and they're stories and what happened to them, and then I'll get to her analysis and I'll be like "what the hell?" (more the fact that she made an analysis than anything I guess. Well, not quite. Sometimes it'll just seem kind of not right, and sometimes it'll seem to be an oversimplification or just not entirely accurate or fair to the person. I don't like them.) So the book is turning out to be not as bad as I'd expected, but the theory bits are still kind of painful. I just have 50 pages left, though. But I can't read it for very long. lol. But also, if you believe what she says--she says that, like, women are all about caring and responsibility and relationships, and men are all about isolation and independence and logic. O.o I don't know. It's supposed to be feminist, and in some ways it is, because she says that the reason women are often deemed inferior or wrong or messed-up by psychological theory (I do not like Freud, by the way. A lot of the psychologists--they do these studies and all, and then make women, like, the exceptions! I think there are more women than men on earth, right? Even if there are equal numbers--you can't make half the population an exception! That means there's something wrong with your theory!!!) is, uhm, because of what I said in the parenthesis. lol. Like, that psychological theory is pointed toward men and the way men think and develop, and women are different. So in that way it is feminist. But I don't know. I actually get offended sometimes--often by the generalizations. . . it's really weird. They totally play off old stereotypes of men and women. And kind of say that women are caretakers--and that that's good, but. . . I don't know. Anyway. Hmmm. Plus, it was written in 1982, and I'm wondering if it isn't a little outdated--like, if it wouldn't be different if it were written now. I'm just not a big fan of difference feminism, I guess. And the thing is, I'm hesitant to make judgements against what she says, because I, you know, haven't studied all this. . . I don't want to make an uninformed judgement--certainly not an uninformed condemnation. . . and sometimes I wonder if it isn't something in me personally that doesn't like this. . . I'm not sure. . . but something about the whole thing, a lot of what she says, doesn't seem right to me.
Ehh. . . I guess I'll stop there.
My skirt is almost done, there's just a bit of handsewing to do on the hem. I love it! :D
I've noticed sometimes that. . . hmm. How do I want to put this. Every once in a while it will kind of hit me how hard it is to understand other people. Like, I'll just get this new realization of the fact. Like, that no matter how similar we all are in some ways, everyone thinks differently. This will come home to me sometime when I can kind of see something [that someone is thinking] that I just won't understand. And I don't even mean something so horrible or whatever that you say "How can they do that?". It'll just be something that's a little beyond my comprehension, or just really different from what I would have thought. Kinda. A little more so, but that's the basic thing. Which is something important to recognize, I think. Like. . . that you can't always understand everything that someone else does, because they're a different person. And maybe that that doesn't mean they're wrong, you know? You can't really see how someone thinks. This is something I've kind of been thinking about lately because of In a Different Voice. She makes all these judgements. . . and also a lot of generalizations--it gets kind of dangerous, but that's not really my point, I guess. She has all these case studies to prove her points, and I'll love hearing what people had to say, and they're stories and what happened to them, and then I'll get to her analysis and I'll be like "what the hell?" (more the fact that she made an analysis than anything I guess. Well, not quite. Sometimes it'll just seem kind of not right, and sometimes it'll seem to be an oversimplification or just not entirely accurate or fair to the person. I don't like them.) So the book is turning out to be not as bad as I'd expected, but the theory bits are still kind of painful. I just have 50 pages left, though. But I can't read it for very long. lol. But also, if you believe what she says--she says that, like, women are all about caring and responsibility and relationships, and men are all about isolation and independence and logic. O.o I don't know. It's supposed to be feminist, and in some ways it is, because she says that the reason women are often deemed inferior or wrong or messed-up by psychological theory (I do not like Freud, by the way. A lot of the psychologists--they do these studies and all, and then make women, like, the exceptions! I think there are more women than men on earth, right? Even if there are equal numbers--you can't make half the population an exception! That means there's something wrong with your theory!!!) is, uhm, because of what I said in the parenthesis. lol. Like, that psychological theory is pointed toward men and the way men think and develop, and women are different. So in that way it is feminist. But I don't know. I actually get offended sometimes--often by the generalizations. . . it's really weird. They totally play off old stereotypes of men and women. And kind of say that women are caretakers--and that that's good, but. . . I don't know. Anyway. Hmmm. Plus, it was written in 1982, and I'm wondering if it isn't a little outdated--like, if it wouldn't be different if it were written now. I'm just not a big fan of difference feminism, I guess. And the thing is, I'm hesitant to make judgements against what she says, because I, you know, haven't studied all this. . . I don't want to make an uninformed judgement--certainly not an uninformed condemnation. . . and sometimes I wonder if it isn't something in me personally that doesn't like this. . . I'm not sure. . . but something about the whole thing, a lot of what she says, doesn't seem right to me.
Ehh. . . I guess I'll stop there.
